Raymond Toy wrote on 11/30/2005 12:08:07 PM:
> It would be nice if we could use Lisp conditions for this instead just
> plain ignore-errors. I think every Lisp we support has this with the
> possible exception of gcl.
I agree. I've never messed with Lisp conditions. Maybe the code
is organized in a way that would make a clear path for a knowledgeable
person to do this.
> Is there a reason we shouldn't checkin your work to maxima? Or at
> least on a branch? It would make it easier for me, at least, to
> contribute to your work.
No, I think it would be OK to check it in. If somebody would do that
for me, that would be great. One thing that needs to be fixed already:
(setf (gethash '%sec cl-double-float-op) #'(lambda (x) (let ((y
(ignore-errors (/ 1 (cl:cos x)))))
(if y y
(domain-error x 'sec)))))
was
(setf (gethash '%sec cl-double-float-op) #'(lambda (x) (let ((y
(ignore-errors (/ 1 (cl:cos x)))))
(if y (first y)
(domain-error x 'sec)))))
And etc for the other functions. I flubbed when I changed from errset to
ignore-errors.
> Barton> (1) revise atan2, log, and exp so that these functions
> Barton> evaluate similarly to the way the other trig
> Barton> functions evaluate.
>
> What does this mean? You mean log(x+%i*y) will automatically evaluate
> when x and/or y are floats/bfloats? If so, then yes, I agree.
Yes, this is what I meant --- these functions should use the same
mechanism for floating point evaluation as do the new trig functions.